Optimal evidence in difficult settings: improving health interventions and decision making in disasters.

Martin Gerdin and colleagues argue that disaster health interventions and decision-making can benefit from an evidence-based approach Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Does assistive technology contribute to social inclusion for people with intellectual disability? A systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this review is to answer the following question: Does assistive technology contribute to social inclusion for people with intellectual disability? Previous research on assistive technology has focused on socioeconomic impacts such as education, employment and access to healthcare by people with intellectual disability. There is a need to consolidate evidence on the interaction between intellectual disability, assistive technology, community living and social inclusion. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review will consider studies from all settings: geographical, socioeconomic and care (institutional and community care), published in English. Studies reported in other languages with abstracts in English will be included if they can be translated using Google Translate, otherwise such studies will be included in the appendix. The review will include both qualitative and quantitative studies. The intervention in this review refers to the use of assistive technology to promote community participation or interpersonal relationships (social inclusion) for people with intellectual disability. The outcomes will be behavioural and social benefits of using assistive technology by people with intellectual disability. Enhanced interpersonal relationships and community participation by people with intellectual disability. Data analysis will be in two phases. The first phase will involve analysis of individual study designs separately. The second phase will be narrative/thematic synthesis of all study groups. ETHICS: The review will not create any ethical or safety concerns. DISSEMINATION: At least one peer-reviewed article in a leading journal such as the BMJ is planned. The findings will also be disseminated through a seminar session involving internal audience at Trinity College Dublin and within the Assistive Technologies for people with Intellectual Disability and Autism research programme. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017065447; Pre-results.

Evidence Aid approach to gap analysis and priority setting of questions for systematic reviews in disasters.

This article is based on a presentation at the Evidence Aid Symposium, on 20 September 2014, at Hyderabad, India. Ten years after the Indian Ocean Tsunami, Evidence Aid and it parters and other humanitarian stakeholders met to update about Evidence Aid work and discussed it future. The Evidence Aid approach to fill in the gap on the production and use of evidence in disater sector and other humanitarian health emergencies was widely discussed. Iterative approach to prioritise evidence reinforced Evidence Aid principle of independacy and a coordinated international orgasisation. The generation of 30 research questions during the prioritisation process contitute the first big step for Evidence Aid to become a one stop shop for the seach evidence on the effectiveness of interventions in disasters.

The use of systematic reviews and other research evidence in disasters and related areas: preliminary report of a needs assessment survey.

OBJECTIVES: This paper presents the initial data analysis for a survey to identify the attitudes towards systematic reviews and research of those involved in the humanitarian response to natural disasters and other crises; their priorities for evidence, and their preferences for accessing this information. METHODS: Snowballing sampling techniques were used to recruit participants who identified themselves as humanitarian aid workers, with or without experience in providing funding to aid agencies. An online questionnaire with both quantitative and qualitative questions was made available to participants using a variety of e-mail lists. Quantitative responses from 85 participants to a selection of questions were descriptively analysed using SPSS. RESULTS: Findings indicated that respondents had positive opinions about systematic reviews and using research evidence when planning and responding to disasters. Seventy participants answered the question on the usefulness of reviews before, during and after disasters and, of these, 83% said that systematic reviews are useful in disasters, and the remaining 17% said they did not know. No-one selected the option that systematic reviews are not useful. The most preferred format for access to systematic reviews was the whole reviews, supplemented by comments from experts in the humanitarian sector (61%), 33% choose access to the full review, 20% choose the summary of reviews and 50% choose summary of reviews plus context-specific information. Inadequate access was the most commonly reported barrier to the use of systematic reviews (70%). This was followed by the lack of time to use reviews (59%) and insufficient knowledge about reviews (49%). Respondents selected scientific evidence as the most preferred type of evidence for influencing their decisions (80%), 11% ranked personal experience highest, 6% said their organisation's usual practice, 1% said anecdotal evidence and 1% said intuition would be their first choice. 69% of participants "strongly agreed" that evidence from systematic reviews could have a positive role in humanitarian interventions and a further 29% "agreed" with the same statement. 66% thought they would like to access them when a natural disaster is not known to be imminent, compared to 34% who said that they would not wish to access systematic reviews at such a time. 70% would like to access systematic reviews during the period of prediction that a disaster will happen CONCLUSION: These preliminary findings from the Evidence Aid survey emphasise the need for "global" evidence but also the need that this be supplemented by local and context-specific knowledge. Systematic reviews could play a central role in improving the effectiveness of humanitarian aid in the planning, delivery and recovery phases of a disaster. KEYWORDS: Evidence base, humanitarian planning, delivery and recovery, systematic review.

Second Evidence Aid Conference: prioritizing evidence in disaster aid.

The Second Evidence Aid Conference took place in Brussels, Belgium, in October 2012, jointly organized by Evidence Aid and the Belgian Red Cross-Flanders. It provided an opportunity to build on the discussions from the 2011 First Evidence Aid Conference in Oxford, England, and prioritize the future work of Evidence Aid. Within the plenary presentations, discussions, and small work groups, the more than 80 international participants addressed issues regarding the need, use, and prioritization of evidence. Three parallel workshops focused on the prioritization of research, systematic reviews, and data to be collected during disasters, leading to a suggested prioritization framework and a commitment to identify key areas for evidence in disasters. Working with a wide variety of people and organizations from the disaster and humanitarian sectors, Evidence Aid will take this framework and develop a list of top priority questions in need of research and systematic reviews. Although Evidence Aid will not be able to address all of the research questions that will be identified in this process, it will collect them for sharing with relevant agencies. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2013;7:593-596).

Evidence for disaster risk reduction, planning and response: design of the Evidence Aid survey.

Systematic reviews are now regarded as a key component of the decision making process in health care, and, increasingly, in other areas. This should also be true in disaster risk reduction, planning and response. Since the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004, The Cochrane Collaboration and others have been working together to strengthen the use and usefulness of systematic reviews in this field, through Evidence Aid. Evidence Aid is conducting a survey to identify the attitudes of those involved in the humanitarian response to natural disasters and other crises towards systematic reviews and research in such settings; their priorities for evidence, and their preferences for how the information should be made accessible. This article contains an outline of the survey instrument, which is available in full from www.EvidenceAid.org. The preliminary findings of the survey will be published in future articles.